Dismissed

Akram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2023ABAIL/7057/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court refused an anticipatory bail application in a cheating case regarding 104 marriage forms. The court found the apprehension of arrest unsubstantiated on material facts and dismissed the prayer. It directed the trial court to dispose of any future bail application expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail refused. Application disposed of. Directions issued for expeditious hearing of future bail application.

Akram Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144670

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7057 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Akram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kumar Dubey,Akash Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akash Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.225 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Police StationBhagatpur, District- Moradabad, during the pendency of investigation.

¶8

As per allegation made in the F.I.R., Rs.4,16,000/- for 104 marriage form, was taken from the informant by the applicant and other co-accused persons.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant has not lend a single rupees from the informant. The applicant has not committed such offence. Prima facie no offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 28 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not

¶10

misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that witnesses in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has also support the prosecution story. He has further submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶12

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶13

After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material brought on record, there is no justification for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby refused.

¶14

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicant in view of the judgment in the case Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922 .

¶15

In the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the

¶16

bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicants approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) .

¶17

However, considering the nature of the allegations and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court concerned and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).

¶18

With the above directions, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of finally.

¶19

Order Date :- 20.7.2023 Krishna*

¶20

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shobha Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Aakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj @ Banti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Iqbal Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another